Yeah, I know this is a necrothread, but since there are probably other believers who might find the OP's "argument" persuasive...

OK, first of all, the passages cited are not "evidence" or argumentation, nor were they intended to be. They are poetic expressions of praise for Yahweh, probably intended to be chanted or sung during worship services. Trying to take such literature and use it as "evidence" is to rip it from its context and authorial intent and employ it for an alien purpose. It's like trying to publish Amazing Grace in a physics journal. Biblical authors would surely have been capable of writing arguments for Yahweh's existence if they had intended to do so. That said, you're the one misusing your holy scripture, not us, so let's get started.

If we want to treat these passages as literal argumentation, the the first thing to note is that (when used in this manner) they present testable claims. Any believer who wants to assert that the heavens prove Yahweh's existence ought to realize that in doing so they're sticking their epistemological neck out: if the heavens should turn out not to provide evidence for Yahweh, or to provide evidence against him, the believer should be ready to admit that their claims have been falsified.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

If this is so, then there would be no need to cite this passage at all. Instead, one could torn to the skies themselves, providing the astronomical facts that validate Yahweh's existence and glory. The very fact that Ibelieve is using the Bible instead of astronomy is evidence that the claim is false. If the constellations of the Zodiac were all clearly arranged[1] in the form of Hebrew words spelling out "Holy is the LORD who was and is and is to come," or if the Andromeda Galaxy was shaped like the Tetragrammaton, etc., Ibelieve could have pointed to that, instead of citing Bible passages. With modern instrumentation, Ibelieve would have had access to much more evidence than the ancient Hebrew writers, making his argument even more powerful.That he made no attempt to do anything along these lines indicates that not only is his claim false, he knows it is false.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard." PSALM 19:1-3

Metaphorically stated, but true enough. One anticipated consequence of this is that if their "speech" and "knowledge" is about Yahweh, we would expect peoples all over the world and throughout history, having no contact with one another, to converge on a single explanation for the celestial bodies: that they are the handiwork of a single, male deity who does not play well with others. If the heavens do not make at least this much obvious, then they're not doing a very good job of glorifying Yahweh now, are they? "But--free will!" Sorry, it's one or the other. Either the heavens are arranged in such a way as to glorify Yahweh, thus making his existence unambiguous, or Yahweh prefers to play secret agent and construct a Cosmos so that people can just as easily name other suspects (goddesses and gods) as its creators or none (atheism).

So what do the heavens actually "say?" They present us, quite unambiguously, with a Cosmos that is inconceivably vast, inconceivably old, and not in any sense "about us." The real Cosmos turns out to be as far from a "the heavens are Yahweh's throne and the Earth is his footstool" setup as it is possible to get.

"Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name.

This is inaccurate. Yahweh does not bring out the starry host one by one. They shine day and night. That they appear to come out "one by one" is an illusion caused by the fading of scattered sunlight in the atmosphere, and different levels of stellar brightness that make some stars visible before others. Yahweh would have to talk awfully fast--there's something on the order of 400 billion stars in the Milky Way alone, and it is only one of at least a hundred billion galaxies. The vast majority of these are not even visible to the naked eye. The notion that they were all created to impress humans is patently ridiculous. Any entity capable of doing so would have no reason to.

Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing." Isa 40.26

As has already been pointed out, this is not true. The sky is littered with the remnants of novas and supernovas, black holes consuming stars, and so on. Our own solar system is the product of the supernova detonations of an earlier generation of stars.

The Cosmos is indeed amazing, far beyond the wildest dreams of ancient Hebrew scribes. Rather than proclaiming Yahweh's glory, they demonstrate that he is just a tiny little human construct by comparison, a parochial tribal deity cast in the mold of the status-seeking primates that created him.

I propose that you just think what information you have for the concept of God which you care to tell theists about, and I as a theist will see whether your information and my information concur.

Well, I have no problem defining gods as "powerful and long-lived entities with apparent ability to circumvent known scientific laws."

I have a major problem with concepts like "uncreated creator" or "unique." I just don't see any way for a creator-god to exist before energy/matter. Energy is so closely allied to matter that such a deity wouldn't be creating the physical universe from true nothingness; it would just be rearranging subatomic particles and manipulating preexisting energy sources. I also don't see any reason at all that there should be one and only one god.

Evidence-wise I would need a physical manifestation of a god, but might settle for a characteristic energy signature that appears in the wake of "miracles" and the like.

I am talking about the concept of God and the concept of evidence; we will go into the existence of God after we have concurred on the concept, and also we will go into the evidence for God after we have concurred on the concept of evidence.

Let us be systematic, otherwise we will not get anywhere in the resolution of the question Does God exist, based on evidential thinking?

You will say that with the concept concurred on are we not into assuming already the existence of God?

No, because we are only having the concept in our mind which serves as a blueprint for us to search for God in the actual objective reality of existing things outside our mind.

If we don't have any concept at all that we concur on, that is irrational from both our sides to be discussing at all about the existence of God from evidence, in the actual objective reality of existing things outside our mind.

Now, if you want to point out that the concept of God from yours truly is invalid, then show how it is invalid as a concept, but again first we must agree on what is an invalid concept.

Here again is my concept of God, namely, the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

And here is my concept of evidence, namely, any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

Please forgive me, but if Jeffs wants me to reply to his post, he can and should do it himself; I don't recall what he said in his post. but if I did not give him the courtesy of a reply perhaps it is because I find his post to be a disconnect in regard to God and evidence.

susmariosep, it is difficult for an atheist to define god because we do not believe in god. For the sake of the debate/discussion we can agree to the terms of your proposed god in order to then proceed as to why such an entity does not and cannot exist, or why your specific description of god may exist (no reason to see why it cannot).

Okay, you accept my concept of God as the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe, now we can go forth in an expedition in thinking to come to the existence of God in the actual objective reality of existing things outside our mind.

But first I have to get your concurrence on what is evidence; here is my concept of evidence, namely, any fact man knows leading him to know another fact.

See if you can concur also on my concept of evidence.

As regards your statement that "it is difficult for an atheist to define god because we do not believe in god," yes, it is difficult but you have to come to what theists today have for an adequate and up to date concept of God, otherwise you will be talking past their heads without having any concept that really matches their concept of God today.

How do you come to know or to have the information of their theists' adequate and up to date concept of God?

You have to talk with them, the thinkers among them the best ones today and also if you care in history, or read them; but if you just concentrate on your best-selling atheist writers, that is not doing yourself any decent acquaintance with the adequate and up to date concept of God in the hearts and minds of theists.

Now, the adequate and up to date concept of God for theists today matches perfectly their concept of God in history already over 2000 years back, you have to go into the history of ideas to come to that finding.

Please forgive me, but if Jeffs wants me to reply to his post, he can and should do it himself; I don't recall what he said in his post. but if I did not give him the courtesy of a reply perhaps it is because I find his post to be a disconnect in regard to God and evidence.

Please forgive me, but we have to be connected.

Susmariosep

Don't play games with our forum members. You brought this thread back from the dead, and JeffPT put a lot of thought and effort in replying to you. If you can't be bothered to at least reply with a response that is worthy of his effort, you should find another forum.

Here is my concept of God as a theist, namely, the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

If you want to go this route, then fine. Go that route.

I don't believe in your unique uncreated (nameless) creator.

If you have evidence for it, present it. If not, then I have no reason to believe in it.

I find you are being vague. I find this vagueness as an attempt to lead us down a path whether it be a few posts long, or a few pages long, until eventually we reach a point where we agree with you, then you pop up and say, "See, you believe in God!"

I find you wanting to do nothing but play games. But go ahead.

I am curious about this evidence you have for this uncreated creator that I don't believe in. Convince me you are right.

-M

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Please just contribute your concepts of God as of evidence, and we can work out a mutually acceptable concept of God and also of evidence, in order to exchange thoughts on the existence or nonexistence of God.

The problem is that I do not agree that your definition of God, "the unique uncreated creator and operator of the entire universe", is logically consistent. It contains several assumptions which need to be clarified.

What do you mean by saying that God is unique?

If God was uncreated, then where did he come from?

How do you know that God was uncreated?

Why must the universe have been created?

Why does the universe require an operator?

These are not loaded questions. I am genuinely curious what your reasoning is, and I am not trying to play "gotcha!"

First you proffer your concept of God as you know God to be in concept with theists today, then we will work out a concurrence to meet your objections about the concept.

We are into concepts in our mind, what you are to my observation interested in has to do with the actual objective reality of existing things.

So, first formulate your concept so as to inform yourself that you do have a correct acquaintance with the concept of God, then we will work out together to examine whether your concept of God is congruent to my concept of God -- I being a theist, and next we will work out whether the concept of God we concur on as the one harbored by theists today is a valid concept at all, or not.

You have been on this forum a day, and you clearly have an agenda here. That is ok. A lot of us have an agenda here.

But I can say with a fair degree of certainty that you are not going to successfully get any atheist here to agree with your definition of god as "the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe."

It is not going to happen.

Now I recognize that although your command of the English language is excellent, it is not your native language. However, in spite of your use of extremely polite words, I can't help but feel that you are being dismissive of polite questions posed to you by long-standing forum members. Examples include:

Please forgive me, but if Jeffs wants me to reply to his post, he can and should do it himself; I don't recall what he said in his post. but if I did not give him the courtesy of a reply perhaps it is because I find his post to be a disconnect in regard to God and evidence.

Please forgive me, but we have to be connected.

No I'm going to take a stab at my definition of a god. God is an invention of primitive people, who were unable to answer a set of fundamental questions about their lives on a variety of topics, including health, weather, and the nature and origins of the universe. Their attempts to explain these phenomenon almost always included a supernatural deity or deities who was responsible for things that today are explained by science.

Can we concur on this?

Edited to add that Emily is an active, long-standing, respected member of this online community. When I arrive in a new environment, I try and treat the senior members of the community with respect.

I am asking us all to concur by working together on concepts of God and evidence, not just to accept without any inputs from other posters here my proffered concepts of God and of evidence.

If you don't want to proffer your concepts how can you collaborate on any mutually accepted concepts as to search or resolve the question of God's existence or non-existence from evidence, and thus avoid talking past other people's heads when you do talk.

Here is my concept of God as a theist, namely, the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

If you want to go this route, then fine. Go that route.

I don't believe in your unique uncreated (nameless) creator.

If you have evidence for it, present it. If not, then I have no reason to believe in it.

I find you are being vague. I find this vagueness as an attempt to lead us down a path whether it be a few posts long, or a few pages long, until eventually we reach a point where we agree with you, then you pop up and say, "See, you believe in God!"

I find you wanting to do nothing but play games. But go ahead.

I am curious about this evidence you have for this uncreated creator that I don't believe in. Convince me you are right.

-M

Please forgive me again, but I must avoid your presence.

Tell you what, you proffer your concept of God and of evidence in very concise plain simple and everyday language, then we can work together to arrive at concurrence on concepts from your inputs and my inputs, otherwise you will be talking past other people's heads which is irrational, and I don't want to join you in that tack.

You have been on this forum a day, and you clearly have an agenda here. That is ok. A lot of us have an agenda here.

But I can say with a fair degree of certainty that you are not going to successfully get any atheist here to agree with your definition of god as "the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe."

It is not going to happen.

Now I recognize that although your command of the English language is excellent, it is not your native language. However, in spite of your use of extremely polite words, I can't help but feel that you are being dismissive of polite questions posed to you by long-standing forum members. Examples include:

Please forgive me, but if Jeffs wants me to reply to his post, he can and should do it himself; I don't recall what he said in his post. but if I did not give him the courtesy of a reply perhaps it is because I find his post to be a disconnect in regard to God and evidence.

Please forgive me, but we have to be connected.

No I'm going to take a stab at my definition of a god. God is an invention of primitive people, who were unable to answer a set of fundamental questions about their lives on a variety of topics, including health, weather, and the nature and origins of the universe. Their attempts to explain these phenomenon almost always included a supernatural deity or deities who was responsible for things that today are explained by science.

Can we concur on this?

Edited to add that Emily is an active, long-standing, respected member of this online community. When I arrive in a new environment, I try and treat the senior members of the community with respect.

Well, you are entitled to your thoughts.

And about your concept of God as the "an invention of primitive people...," please now just orient yourself in the current times and circumstances and inform yourself on what theists thinkers have for an adequate and up to date concept of God.

If you don't want to talk about the God of theists today, then that is your privilege to talk about primitive gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc.

Here is my concept of God as a theist, namely, the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

If you want to go this route, then fine. Go that route.

{snip}

Please forgive me again, but I must avoid your presence.

Hello, Susmariosep, welcome to WWGHA. My use of green boldface indicates that I am speaking as a moderator, not as a participant in the discussion.

The reason that I am intervening as a moderator is that you have made overtures indicating that you want to have a discussion, then when you receive responses, you are saying that you do not wish to engage those who have indicated that they have an interest in having a discussion with you. This is particularly problematic in this instance, where what is essentially happening is this:

Susmariosep: This is my concept of God.

Responder: Can you clarify this for me so I can discuss the existence of that being for me?

Susmariosep: I don't want to talk to you.

Which doesn't make a great deal of sense; if you don't want to have a discussion, why are you attempting to initiate one? It's kind of like going into a restaurant and declaring that you aren't going to eat anything. Also, refusing to engage people when you have specifically said you wish to engage people is known as "dodging", and it is not permitted by the rules that you agreed to abide by when you joined WWGHA.

I suggest you rethink your approach to your participation in the forum... Thank you.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Suppose you first proffer your concept of evidence, then we will work out a concurring concept of evidence, that is the time to work on what is a fact and how we arrive at facts.

No, ... I think you should first answer what I asked.

How do we arrive at facts? What is evidence without facts? Evidence relies upon facts. So my question is more important to the discussion than yours.

I give my input on what is my concept of evidence, and I request you do the same.

Now we have a conflict here in that you do not want to proffer your concept of evidence while I have proffered mine, but you insist that I answer your question how we get to facts, but I want you to proffer your concept of evidence first, etc.

So, brother if I may call you brother, you go your way and I go my way.

I give my input on what is my concept of evidence, and I request you do the same.

Evidence is a collection of facts used to demonstrate what the truth is.

Quote

Now we have a conflict here in that you do not want to proffer your concept of evidence while I have proffered mine, but you insist that I answer your question how we get to facts, but I want you to proffer your concept of evidence first, etc.

I just did ^^^

Quote

So, brother if I may call you brother, you go your way and I go my way.

Tell you what, you proffer your concept of God and of evidence in very concise plain simple and everyday language, then we can work together to arrive at concurrence on concepts from your inputs and my inputs,

Let me see if I am reading you correctly. Perhaps I am wrong.

Are you asking me to give you what I believe god is, and what I will accept as evidence? I thought you wanted me to give you a god to discuss, which I did. As for evidence, I have given you what I will accept as evidence, in this post. I feel that I gave you a concept of god. If not then how about correcting me. As far as evidence is concerned I am going to stick with what I wrote in that post as to what I will accept.

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Here is my concept of God as a theist, namely, the unique uncreated creator and operator of the created universe.

If you want to go this route, then fine. Go that route.

{snip}

Please forgive me again, but I must avoid your presence.

Hello, Susmariosep, welcome to WWGHA. My use of green boldface indicates that I am speaking as a moderator, not as a participant in the discussion.

The reason that I am intervening as a moderator is that you have made overtures indicating that you want to have a discussion, then when you receive responses, you are saying that you do not wish to engage those who have indicated that they have an interest in having a discussion with you. This is particularly problematic in this instance, where what is essentially happening is this:

Susmariosep: This is my concept of God.

Responder: Can you clarify this for me so I can discuss the existence of that being for me?

Susmariosep: I don't want to talk to you.

Which doesn't make a great deal of sense; if you don't want to have a discussion, why are you attempting to initiate one? It's kind of like going into a restaurant and declaring that you aren't going to eat anything. Also, refusing to engage people when you have specifically said you wish to engage people is known as "dodging", and it is not permitted by the rules that you agreed to abide by when you joined WWGHA.

I suggest you rethink your approach to your participation in the forum... Thank you.

What can I say, when I try all the time to be as comprehensible to people here as I can manage?

My idea is for us all to come to a mutually accepted concept of God, and of evidence, so that from these mutually concurred on concepts of God and of evidence we can proceed to the search for God in the actual objective reality of existing things, with the mutually accepted concepts of God and of evidence as the maps in a way.

It is not as I seem to see it from you anything like if you don't agree with me I will not reply to you.

You see, we are using words to communicate, and words represent concepts.

It cannot be otherwise that we use words/concepts when we talk or write, and that is why it is important that people be concurring on what they understand with their words/concepts.

If we don't use words/concepts to communicate, what or how will we communicate when you and I for example want to tell the other there is a rhino loose in the streets, by bringing a rhino to your presence and pointing it to you, and then dragging both the rhino and you to street after street, hoping thereby you get my thought that there is a rhino loose in the streets?

But if we understand mutually that the word rhino represents the same concept in our minds which concept represents rhino in the actual objective reality of existing things, then we can communicate without dragging in a rhino.

Yes, the concept of God is one we have to concur on, in order to search for God in the actual objective reality of existing things, because it is one word/concept that people are talking about in regard to the entity's presence in the actual objective reality of existing things.

With all due respect, guys like Susmariosep are the reason why I'm not so fond of talking with theists anymore. It doesn't matter what we say or think, he is just going to continue spouting nonsense because he is unable to comprehend our questions to properly answer them. In addition, none of what he wishes to engage in will change anybody's mind anyway.

Mr./Mrs./Miss Susmariosep, for the sake of avoiding all this trivial nonsense, please start from the beginning, give us your clear-cut empirical definition of evidence and God, and tell us what specifics, and for the sake of hypotheticals, I'll just agree, just so the discussion can get moving.

I went to an online translator, and it seems that atheist in Tagalog is ateista or ateo. I know online translators sometimes don't work very well, but I'm hoping that this communicates effectively.

Perhaps the reason that you are having trouble getting people to buy into your definition of god is that we do not believe that a god exists. We do not believe that a god created the universe. We do not believe in the supernatural.

Do you understand this?

Now there are theists who come here who enjoy engaging in conversation and exchanging ideas with us. And they are welcome.

But you don't seem to understand where you are and who you are talking to.

I give my input on what is my concept of evidence, and I request you do the same.

Evidence is a collection of facts used to demonstrate what the truth is.

Quote

Now we have a conflict here in that you do not want to proffer your concept of evidence while I have proffered mine, but you insist that I answer your question how we get to facts, but I want you to proffer your concept of evidence first, etc.

I just did ^^^

Quote

So, brother if I may call you brother, you go your way and I go my way.

You are one slimy little troll aren't you?

You say, "Evidence is a collection of facts used to demonstrate what the truth is."

And I say, "Evidence is any fact man knows leading him to know another fact."

Both concepts have similarities, in that both are concerned with fact(s).

So, do you see that you are using fact and I am using fact.

Now you want me to tell you how we come to facts, is that correct, my understanding of your question?

Let us instead ask ourselves together how we come to facts, since you are also using the word fact in your concept of evidence and you say "Evidence is a collection of facts used to demonstrate what the truth is."

----------------------

You call me a slimy little troll, that is a distraction at least if nothing else.

Please disabuse yourself of such utterances.

----------------------

Now, here is what I think and I like to know what you think, how we come to facts:

We come to a fact by using our external senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste to come to the presence of a fact, for example, you want to come to the fact of the sourness or sweetness of an orange, then you apply your taste buds to the meat/juice of the orange.

Now, what about internal conditions of our body, like a stomachache or the thought in your mind or the anger in your heart by which you call me a slimy little troll?

From your part now, tell me how you come to a fact, thereby we will both have a concurring concept of what is a fact; but we still have to work out how we come to internal states or conditions of our body and our mind.

How we come to facts from my part, the account I give, it is an extemporaneous account from a quick self-examination of my experiences of facts; I need your inputs for us both to come to concurrence on how we come to facts and thereby to come to again a concurrence on what is a fact in concept.